There is nothing in the rules that says ham radio audio has to sound tinny, scratchy and irritating like what you hear coming out of the space shuttle. Anyone who takes pride in his station would value good sounding audio as much as he would a strong signal report.

Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap!

I never cease to be amazed at the number of hams that are either too lazy or too ignorant of their radios to produce quality audio. Instead they complain about those who DO care.

« Last Edit: March 03, 2011, 01:09:55 PM by W3LK »

Logged

A smoking section in a restaurant makes as much sense as a peeing section in a swimming pool.

There are microphones, audio frequency response tailoring devices, and many comments in posts related to having "great" or "broadcast quality" transmitted audio. What am I missing? The most effective audio characteristic when working other stations, especially DX, is to have a relatively limited audio bandwidth, possibly using compression as well. I just don't understand the 20 Hz-20000 KHz mentality; the audio circuitry in ham rigs will restrict the frequency response anyway so who cares? Is it that some hams like to pretend that they are "broadcasting" to the world?Why isn't the emphasis on the type of audio which will "get through" most effectively?Yes, I know that some hams like AM and I can understand that, but those are not whom I'm talking about.What is the interest for hams in microphones with a "DC to daylight" (in the audio sense) frequency responses, and transmit "audio equalizers", especially given that many modern rigs do have the ability to tailor transmitted frequency response?

I have heard your audio on the air, and you are DEFINATELY not obsessed with great audio

What I have found over the years is that there is a place for good sounding audio, and a place for tinny audio (for lack of a better expression). When you aren't moving the other guy's s-meter, you need a frequency response that is NOT the best choice when you are 30 over 9. More times than I can count, I've seen people switch from a dynamic mic like a Shure 444 to an Astatic D-104. After they do that, the other station can finally hear them very clearly. :-)

The definition of great audio seems to vary more from ham to ham on HF these days than at other time in the past 40 years. Personally, if you want to make your SSB signal sound like you're on AM, you should run AM. SSB that's wide and has a lot of lows might sound good domestically but for DX, it doesn't sound good. Quite the opposite. In fact, many of those running so-called enhance SSB are transmitting IMD up and down the band -- contributing to unnecessary QRM. I've heard DX stations running enhanced SSB and they are hard to copy -- too mushy and bassy.

Prior to buying a Heil microphone element that I wanted to install in my existing boom mic/headphone set, I had to decide if I wanted better sounding audio or a different audio frequency response curve to give better "punch" for DX. Since I wanted to maximize my efforts to work DX with my linear and beam, I chose the DX element.

This is one area of audio "enhancement" that doesn't affect IMDs, simply a tailored frequency response within the 3KHz passband.

I have encountered DX stations that use some kind of audio processing that, as far as I'm concerned, rendered their signal so difficult to tune that I finally gave up and changed frequency.

I personally feel the worst offenders of audio processing are the ones that use too much compression.

Which I suppose is another way of saying, for every one that is really concerned about "great sounding audio on SSB," which was the original question on this forum, there are many more who go the other way and deliberately trash their signals trying to get that DX "punch." They couldn't care less if they create interference with others on the band.

Microphone is biggest factor here because anything you do starts with mic. The Heil HC4 DX special can be very harsh and unpleasant with some rigs. I have owned one for over 10 years and I find I get unfavorable reports using it with modern rigs unless i digitally modify its bandpass. As far as compression, if you have a narrow mic and use a lot of compression it can get unpleasant to listen too. The Heil HC-5 is a good overall performer with a lot of rigs and is still my favorite.

Logged

--------------------------------------Ham since 1969.... Old School 20wpm REAL Extra Class..

I've gotten reports that my audio "sounds good"...whether they really mean that it's good for DX, or pleasing to the ear, I don't know. Since nobody has stated "your audio sounds like &*%&*", I'll just leave my settings alone.I have heard stations with REALLY bad, distorted, audio and I can't stand to listen to them either...if I can even understand what they're saying.

JX: Me either! Otherwise, I wouldn't have worked so hard to get my ham ticket! Ya know, even CB'rs try to modify their audio. They get power mics, "open up" their modulators..... they for the most part don't know what the hell they're doing but they want better audio or more modge! :-)

You know boys and girls, this is one of the great things about ham radio. It is not only accepted but encouraged for hams to build, modify and or improve their gear. One area that can be changed is the audio quality. You can go the legal limit in power and that's it. But you can tinker to your hearts' delight trying to get better audio.

I must admit that I used to wonder the same thing. To my credit, however, I never got angry with people who were interested in "good" audio. Since then, I have learned that audio which is primarily the mid-range portion of the human voice (i.e. 300 to 2400 Hz.) carries better over long distances. It is frequency-efficient on crowded bands. The downside is that this type of narrow audio is not very enjoyable to listen to in a ragchew. The wider audio is much more pleasant to listen to for extended periods, but is not good for contesting, DX chasing, or use on crowded bands. Let's say that a ham is running ESSB (50 to 5000 Hz), and his signal strength is very weak into your receiver. You might only be able to hear the bass portion of his voice, in which case you will not be able to understand what he is saying. On a related topic, let's compare AM to ESSB for a moment. To start with, not all AM is the same bandwidth, nor is ESSB. For the sake of comparison, let's say that both signals are 6 kHz wide. In this case, the ESSB is more frequency-efficient, because it is utilizing all of the occupied bandwidth. The AM signal is really only utilizing half of the occupied bandwidth, since the 2 sidebands carry identical information. In either case, the transmitting station(s) should make certain that they do not interfere with a pre-existing QSO. Also, the use of these wider modes should be avoided in crowded band conditions. Some people like chocolate, some like vanilla. Can’t we all just get along?Jim ki8jd

If you think I have a problem with my audio, tell me I want to know but some take offense and I have hit a sore note a few times when trying to tell someone their audio was bad. Heck I even hate to tell some are off frequency or drifting as I just use RIT to track them and stay where I am on transmit. General if someone has real bad audio I tend to avoid them completely. Old timer hams do not seem to might comments but some of young ones do. Been a Ham for 41 years but I still can make mistakes with my audio and when i do want to know.

Logged

--------------------------------------Ham since 1969.... Old School 20wpm REAL Extra Class..

Copyright 2000-2019 eHam.net, LLC
eHam.net is a community web site for amateur (ham) radio operators around the world.
Contact the site with comments or questions.
WEBMASTER@EHAM.NETSite Privacy Statement